ABDUL KARIM Versus STATE

ORDER

The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioners stood surety of one Muhammad Boota who was involved in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad. Each of the petitioners had stood surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each. The accused absented himself on 18‑5‑1995, therefore, notice to the petitioners as well as to the accused were issued. According to the report of the process‑server, subsequently on 23‑5‑1995, the learned Court directed the forfeiture of the entire amount of the bail bonds. Petitioners moved an application before the same Court for recalling of the said order but the same was dismissed. In the present revision learned counsel for the petitioners had challenged the order impugned.

It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were not served any notice, therefore, the forfeiture is bad in law. Contended that the accused Muhammad Boota was not known to the petitioners. They had stood surety only out of kindness. They were neither related to him nor had any dealings. Asserted that said Boota appeared subsequently before the Court; there has been a compromise between the parties. It was lastly contended that the entire amount of forfeiture of bail bonds was excessive.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. Both the petitioners stood surety of one Muhammad Boota involved in a murder case. Said accused failed to appear before the Court, therefore, a notice to the petitioners was issued which they refused to accept. Process server gave a report to that effect. In such circumstances, learned Court had no choice but to direct the forfeiture of the entire amount of surety bond. There is no legal infirmity in the order impugned which could warrant interference. The last contention of learned counsel, however, requires consideration that the parties have effected a compromise and Muhammad Boota accused appeared before the Court subsequently. Since the accused has joined the proceedings, therefore, I feel forfeiture of the entire amount of surety bonds was excessive. In these circumstances, while dismissing the revision, forfeiture of surety bonds is reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 each. With this reduction the revision is dismissed. Petition is dismissed.

N.H.Q./A‑42/L Petition dismissed.